By Jeff Foust on 2005 October 18 at 1:36 pm ET Many of the newspaper editorials about NASA’s exploration strategy, unveiled a month ago, have been critical of it, particularly in light of questions about the cost and utility of the program. The Atlanta Journal Constitution published an editorial today taking a very different approach: it spoke favorably of the exploration plan, and in fact argued that NASA should focus almost exclusively on it, instead of continuing to fly the shuttle in the near term to complete the ISS: “The moon can and probably should be our ultimate space station. But to return there, NASA must turn its attention fully to that mission.” In effect, NASA would be betting everything on the exploration program right now.
This comes around the time concerns have come to light that there’s not enough money in the NASA budget estimates over the next several years to continue flying the shuttle and assembling the ISS while also starting up development of the CEV, crew launch vehicle, and other exploration-related projects. Worse, there’s no guarantee that NASA will get even what it has been projecting: according to one scenario the Houston Chronicle reported today, Congress may enact a two-percent across-the-board cut on all discretionary programs in the budget, in an effort to satisfy those fiscal conservatives who have been seeking bigger cuts to pay for hurricane relief. A two-percent cut would take over $300 million from NASA, and could add pressure to make some difficult choices about the shuttle, station, and exploration programs.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 October 18 at 1:21 pm ET Who knew naming a street after an astronaut would be so difficult? That’s the gist of a Burlington (Iowa) Hawk Eye article about a city council meeting in that small Mississippi River city that took up the issue of renaming a street after STS-114 pilot, and Burlington native, Jim Kelly. The council seemed all set to rename an existing street, Mason Road, to Kelly Way, until a councilmember objected that the street was named after a former chief justice of the territorial court in the early 19th century. With the possibility that a street in a new subdivision will be named after him, the council voted to table the renaming resolution until January, much to the disappointment of one councilman. “It’s giving an honor to a gentleman from Burlington who, at the wish of his government, got thrown off this planet twice,” said Mike Campbell. (“Thrown off?” Oh, whatever…) He added the he believes that if Kelly had attended the hearing in person, as was rumored, the street would have been renamed.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 October 16 at 11:46 am ET A front-page article in Sunday’s San Francisco Chronicle provides a detailed overview of some of the issues associated with the field of space law. Keay Davidson talks with many of the major players involved in the field, from Greg Nemitz (who tried and failed to get NASA to pay a “landing fee” for its NEAR spacecraft on Eros, an asteroid he has claimed), to lawyers Rosanna Sattler, Wayne White, and Jim Dunstan. Much of the focus of the article is on property rights in space, perhaps the hottest topic in space law in recent years.
The article also notes that there will be a seminar on property rights in space, particularly as they apply to settlement of the Moon, on October 26 in Washington. Speaking will be Dunstan as well as Klaus Heiss, a long-time advocate of lunar settlement (as evidenced by a new project his organization, High Frontier, has been pushing, Jamestown on the Moon.)
By Jeff Foust on 2005 October 16 at 11:33 am ET The Russian news agencies Interfax and RIA Novosti both report that the Russian Foreign Ministry has submitted a draft resolution to the UN regarding “transparency and confidence-building measures in space exploration”. Interfax quotes a ministry statement as follows:
[T]he development of a set of transparency and confidence-building measures regarding space exploration by the international community would enhance predictability in this sector, and could become a consolidating factor for all states as regards space exploration. The initiative could also help devise a careful and responsible approach to the further exploration and utilization of outer space.
So what exactly does that all mean? It all sounds very vague, but another quote is a bit more enlightening: “Our goal is to improve international security and preserve peace in space both for ourselves and for future generations.” While I could not find a copy of this draft resolution on the UN’s web site, it appears to be another push by Russia (probably with the support of China and perhaps other nations) on banning space weaponization.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 October 15 at 11:08 am ET One of the unique characteristics of the Space Exploration Alliance (SEA), the loose coalition of space organizations formed in the spring of 2004 to support the Vision for Space Exploration, has been its diversity. Its members have included industry organizations (AIAA, AIA), supporters of lunar exploration (Moon Society), supporters of Mars exploration (Mars Society), supporters of space settlement in general (NSS), supporters of exploration and scientific research (Planetary Society), and backers of commercialization and entrepreneurial ventures (Space Frontier Foundation). Well, scratch that last one: the Foundation has withdrawn from the SEA, citing in part its concerns over NASA’s exploration plans and SEA’s support of said plans. A quote from a letter distributed by the Foundation this morning: “We cannot be part of a fan club for a status quo that has failed so miserably time after time in our nation’s quest for space, resulting in hundreds-of-billions of wasted taxpayer dollars.”
The Foundation’s departure from the SEA probably won’t significantly hurt the alliance, since it still has more than a dozen other members. However, the SEA in general, as an organization, has not done much visible work in support of the Vision, particularly prior to its August recess lobbying effort.
Since the Foundation has not posted its announcement online, I’ve posted the contents of the email announcement after the jump:
Continue reading A bit of a SEA change
By Jeff Foust on 2005 October 13 at 7:04 am ET Tuesday night’s launch of Shenzhou 6 hasn’t had anywhere near the effect of Shenzhou 5, China’s first manned spaceflight, two years ago, but there is still some debate about the overall nature of China’s space efforts and how the US should react. On one side are those who see China’s manned space activities as cover for more nefarious military ones: an example is this Tech Central Station column by Melana Zyla Vickers, who points to such signs as increased development of satellites by China, as well as rumored development of ground-based anti-satellite lasers. Her suggestions to the US: develop a “long-range, stealthy bomber [that] would be capable of flying deep into an enemy’s territory and destroying his anti-satellite-warfare weaponry”, as well as “a program to stockpile replacement satellites [and] to launch them extra-quickly”. How the former differs from the B-2, or the latter from Operationally Responsive Space, isn’t specified.
On the other hand, there are those who instead want to work together with China. In an editorial, Florida Today argues that the US should “encourage Chinese space efforts toward mutual goals of peaceful exploration, rather than space militarization.” How to do that? Invite China to participate in the ISS program. The editorial doesn’t state, though, whether China would even be interested in the ISS, given its stated plans to develop its own, albeit much smaller, space stations in the years to come.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 October 13 at 6:46 am ET While a decision regarding who will build the Crew Exploration Vehicle is still many months in the future (although Northrop and Boeing unveiled its updated CEV design yesterday, one that closely resembles NASA’s own baseline design), the competition regarding where to build it is heating up. Florida Today reports that Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) is trying to garner support for a CEV assembly facility near KSC, claiming that a plant near the spaceport “could save cash-strapped NASA at least $400 million annually and protect as many as 500 local space jobs”. Nelson plans private meetings today with state and KSC officials, and perhaps representatives of the Lockheed and Northrop-Boeing CEV teams, along with a press conference this afternoon.
Florida is not alone, though, in promoting its state as a CEV assembly site. The California Space Authority released earlier this week a letter to NASA administrator Mike Griffin signed by 32 members of the state’s Congressional delegation. The letter notes the state’s heritage in spacecraft assembly and adds that “California continues to offer world-class space manufacturing and testing facilities as well as an experienced workforce capable of designing, developing, and manufacturing the CEV.” The letter adds that state officials have entered discussions with both industry teams regarding state and local economic incentives for building the CEV in California.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 October 12 at 1:11 pm ET (Where, here, TPS means The Planetary Society and not thermal protection system.) In a statement released yesterday, the society is strongly suggesting that the shuttle should be grounded to free up funding for the exploration vision. The statement doesn’t go out and state that—if you read to the end you’ll see that they hedge their bets, just in case—but they do believe that NASA should study alternatives to the shuttle for completing the ISS. Those alternatives include making use of the capabilities of the international partners, finding alternatives for cargo delivery to the station (although they do not mention the use of commercial services for ISS cargo or crew, something NASA plans to issue an RFP for in the near future), and even using a shuttle-derived heavy-lift launcher to launch ISS modules (which may run into the same problems as trying to shift ISS modules to other expendable vehicles.) Interestingly, while the statement mentions in passing that the shuttle would also be used for a Hubble repair—something that may well be nearer and dearer to the hearts of more members than the ISS—it offers no alternatives for Hubble. From the statement: “Clearly no one would want to fly the shuttle if it were totally unsafe or prohibitively expensive. Now it is ‘only’ partially unsafe, and is certainly very expensive. Prudence and experience strongly suggest we plan for the possibility that the shuttle remains unavailable.”
By Jeff Foust on 2005 October 11 at 1:09 pm ET Today’s issue of the Washington Examiner, a free DC-area newspaper, fires a shot across the bow of the Vision for Space Exploration in an editorial. Decrying the “almost Ahab-like obsession exhibited by many with regard to space travel to the moon and, ultimately, Mars”, the editorial claims that there is no support for the VSE but, despite that, the President and NASA are pushing ahead. As is the case with many such editorials, it notes that robots are much safer, cheaper, and more effective.
The Examiner makes an odd claim, that the original VSE was “instantly grounded by most” and that the administration continues to push the plan “[d]espite the proposal’s lack of support on Capitol Hill.” The latter claim is hard to reconcile with the full funding for NASA in the FY05 budget (Tom DeLay certainly helped, but he didn’t act alone), nor the overwhelming passage of NASA authorization legislation in the House and Senate this year (383-15 in the House, unanimous consent in the Senate), both of which explicitly support the exploration vision.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 October 8 at 12:42 pm ET While doing some other work this morning I stumbled across a web site promoting something called the “Extraterrestrial Contact Act of 2005″. It is a proposed piece of legislation that would “establish a protocol to allow public interaction with Extraterrestrial Intelligences that may make, or express a desire to make peaceful contact with the people of Earth.” It includes a “contact protocol” for what the government would do in the event that ET “makes, attempts to make, or expresses a desire to make peaceful contact with the people of Earth” (evidently they’ve covered their bases should a fleet of Klingon warships show up in Earth orbit). It also states that citizens have the “irrevocable right to freely interact, associate and communicate with Extraterrestrial Intelligences, whether on or off the Earth”, should you have any question about the legality of your late-night meetings with ET.
This effort is led by Darryl Anka, who has “conducted metaphysical and consciousness-raising seminars and lectures for the past 22 years”, apparently making him an expert on extraterrestrial contact and law. Another person involved in this effort, April Rierdan, “has worked in the field of metaphysics and extraterrestrial research for the past 10 years.” So these folks are experts, kids: don’t try drafting ET contact law at home.
Not surprisingly, no one in Congress has introduced this legislation. Go figure.
|
|
